Opening ANWR

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Postby Kelannar » Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:34 am

I guess it follows the usual mantra of the left. If a Republican does it, it's bad. If a Democrat does it, it's good. How intellectually bankrupt can you get? Does anyone actually READ these papers anymore?<BR><BR>-----------<BR><BR>By Michael Catanzaro<BR>April 9, 2001 12:30 p.m.<BR><BR>Rarely do the editorial pages of the New York Times and Washington Post deviate from left-wing orthodoxy. So when they do, it's worth noting, especially on such a politically charged matter as the environment. In this case, it's opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil and gas drilling, which for leftist greens is worthy of excommunication from the Church of Gaia. <BR><BR>The Times and Post currently propound the apocalyptic nonsense that ANWR will drive indigenous caribou and endangered species to extinction, will inevitably lead to another Exxon Valdez oil spill, and generally will despoil the pristine wilderness. They also believe that pipelines and oil rigs arrayed against undisturbed pastures of wilderness are aesthetically offensive (even though ANWR, one of the most remote places on Earth, is, except for a few months, covered in ice).<BR><BR>But both papers (surprisingly) at one time argued against these shibboleths. Not so long ago, scribes at the Times and Post penned some astonishing editorials in which they debunked with eloquence and common sense the arguments that they so enthusiastically champion today. <BR><BR>In 1988, the Times and Post supported the recommendation of Reagan Interior Secretary Don Hodel that opening ANWR could reap immense benefits with little or no environmental damage. Which is the same argument, in fact, made by President Bush and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Frank Murkowski (R., Alaska).<BR><BR>The Times, in an editorial on June 2, 1988, wrote with clear sense: "… the potential [of ANWR] is enormous and the environmental risks are modest … the likely value of the oil far exceeds plausible estimates of the environmental costs." "Some member of Congress," the Times continued, "believe that no damage at all is acceptable. But most are ready to accept a little environmental degradation in return for a lot of oil," and that "… it is hard to see why absolutely pristine preservation of this remote wilderness should take precedence over the nation's energy needs."<BR><BR>The Times also heaped expansive praise on oil drilling in Prudhoe Bay and Alaska's North Slope. "The North Slope development has been America's biggest test by far of the proposition that it is possible to balance energy needs with sensitivity for the environment," it wrote in 1988. <BR><BR>On March 30, a year later, the Times dismissed the Exxon Valdez oil spill as a pretext for leaving ANWR untouched. "…Washington can't afford … to treat the [Exxon Valdez] accident as a reason for fencing off what may be the last great oilfield in the nation."<BR><BR>Is this the work of a Times impersonator? For such words simply cannot be squared with this anti-drilling screed written on Jan. 31 of this year: "… Mr. Bush's plan to open [ANWR] is as environmentally unsound and intellectually shaky as it was when Ronald Reagan suggested it 20 years ago and when Mr. Bush's father suggested it a decade ago." <BR><BR>The Times wrote with its usual self-righteous indignation that "it is outrageous for [supporters of opening ANWR] to clamor for access to the pristine lands of the refuge at a time when they have barely begun to tap the significant resources in areas of far less ecological value." <BR><BR>But here is the real kicker: "Finally, as this page has noted many times before, the relatively trivial amounts of recoverable oil in the refuge cannot possibly justify the potential corruption of a unique and irreplaceable natural area."<BR><BR>Apparently the Post editorial board also experienced a similar road-to-Damascus-type conversion, or was simply hijacked by the Birkenstock brigade. The Post wrote last December 25th in an editorial titled "Protect the Refuge" that Bush "would have a hard case to make" in proving that "the oil to be gained [from ANWR] is worth the potential damage to this unique, wild, and biologically vital ecosystem."<BR><BR>Yet in 1987, the Post could not have been more emphatic in exposing the myths propagated about ANWR by the environmental left. It wrote that ANWR "is one of the bleakest, most remote places on this continent, and there is hardly any other where drilling would have less impact on surrounding life…."<BR><BR>Back then, the Post believed that the rich reserves of ANWR could decrease America's dependence on foreign oil, which, it argued, would create sound environmental policies. "But if less is to be produced here in the United States, more will have to come from other countries," it wrote on April 4, 1989. "The effect will be to move oil spills to other shores. As a policy to protect the global environment, that's not very helpful."<BR><BR>These dramatic shifts in opinion show that the editors of the Times and Post are being intellectually dishonest, and just plain absurd. Even if the nation's energy situation had markedly improved over the years — which it clearly has not; it is much, much worse — that would not reconcile the contradiction that ANWR is both "pristine" and "biologically vital" at one moment and bleak and remote in another. ANWR is and always has been bleak and remote.<BR><BR>The nation's energy woes — most dramatically on display in California — make drilling in ANWR, which holds 6 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil, an economic necessity. But that doesn't trouble the world's leading newspapers, which apparently value ideological purity over truth.
User avatar
Kelannar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2000 9:30 pm
Top

Postby Everard » Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:52 am

Well 1988 was a long time ago, do you seriously believe that we are NOT bleeding this planet dry?<BR><BR>But then again what do I know, I wear Birkenstocks. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0>
User avatar
Everard
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 854
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2000 4:04 pm
Top

Postby Kelannar » Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:59 am

Oh please. The Arctic reserve is now what it was then: the same. The only thing that's changed is that our needs for oil have gone up, our dependency on foreign oil has increased, and the New York Times and the Washington Post have revealed their flip-flop in the name of liberal bias.
User avatar
Kelannar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2000 9:30 pm
Top

Postby Everard » Wed Apr 25, 2001 1:05 am

<BR>The issue is much bigger than petty newspaper politics. You dont actually believe everything you read in the newspapers do you? The actual truth of the matter is very rarely to be found in newspapers whose only interest is in selling newspapers.<BR><BR>Oh and what do you suggest happens when the oil runs out?<BR>America being the largest energy user on the planet should be looking for answers that involve NOT digging up the most delicate and sensitive part of the Earth. But hey you need oil NOW so who cares about the future right?
User avatar
Everard
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 854
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2000 4:04 pm
Top

Postby summoned » Wed Apr 25, 2001 4:49 am

Kelannar, I keep forgetting that you read prose of this style on a regular basis -- it explains your usage of language rather well.<BR><BR>The point, again, is well made -- I do not see any way around admitting that the Post and Times editorial pages have reversed their positions. That being said, would we see a similar spew of vituperation if either or both editorial pages should develop a conservative bent? Maybe not in general, but on a specific issue? And if that would not elicit such condemnation, then perhaps the problem is that you are less willing to accept one kind of change than another? Which is fine, so am I -- but to label that ability to change one's mind in such sweeping terms of moral indignation seems a little extreme to me.<BR><BR>As for an explanation of why the Post and Times changed their positions, who knows? The only thing that comes to my mind is the Gulf War, since that is when oil as a political issue reached its most attention. A rather poor suggestion on my part, I admit.
User avatar
summoned
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 748
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 10:09 am
Top

Postby Widfara » Wed Apr 25, 2001 5:07 pm

Oh, I don't know, summoned. I think Kel's point is well-taken. I mean, rewind 12 months for example. If some conservative publication were bustin' Bill's chops nearly every day over something HE proposed to do, and you could find an article showing that they were in favor of the thing 10 years earlier, wouldn't YOU be starting a thread to expose the hypocrisy of the Right?<BR><BR>Now for something completely different... "similar spew of vituperation?" Methinks thou mightest be reading prose of a similar style also. Mayhap not? <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0>
User avatar
Widfara
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2001 8:10 pm
Top

Postby Nira » Wed Apr 25, 2001 5:21 pm

He might be right in the view on NYT, but not in giving the impression that this hypocrisy is limited to the left in the political landscape. A semantic trick in my opinion. <BR><BR>Is it knowingly Kel or are you just not able to look objectively on a subject your self <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0> <BR>
User avatar
Nira
Ranger of the North
 
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 2:28 pm
Top

Postby peregin2k » Wed Apr 25, 2001 5:25 pm

From what I understand about journalism, it changes a lot and doesn't stick to one stand esp. editorials. People who were working for the paper 10 years ago might not be working there anymore, so thier stand changed. NY Times is not branded as a left wing or right wing etc...newspaper, am right? (I don't read this often.) I don't know how the NY Times do their editorial but some newspapers do it by asking all the writers how they feel about the "drilling" for instance and if the majority of NY Times writers feel that it should be done then that's what's gonna come out. Sometimes it's just the editorial board who decides. They are just attune to the times, as Kel said, that our dependency for foriegn oil has gone up.<BR><BR>I don't know if this is approriate to this thread, but I'm againts Arctic drilling.
User avatar
peregin2k
Mariner

 
Posts: 7147
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 2:53 pm
Top

Postby Kelannar » Wed Apr 25, 2001 9:26 pm

peregin, if anything, the New York Times is consistently the most liberal paper in the entire country. And unfortunately for people who read the news, its bias isn't limited to its editorial page. The New York Times' motto is: "All the News That's Fit to Print." But they might as well change it to: "Yesterday's News, Maybe." And if they DO print a "news" article, it's probably entirely inaccurate if it has anything remotely to do with politics. Here's a little evidence:<BR><BR><i>"Reporter John Noble Wilford's compass told him last August 19 that "The North Pole is melting." Wilford's front-page story said water at the Pole was "more evidence that global warming may be real and already affecting climate." <BR><BR>Ten days later, the correction: "The lack of ice at the pole is not necessarily related to global warming." Why? Because "about 10 percent of the Arctic Ocean is clear of ice in a typical summer." As Wilford backpedaled in a follow-up piece after speaking with climatologists: "This has probably been true for centuries."</i><BR><BR>Here's more:<BR><BR><i>"Of course, errors of omission can be just as bad. Asked to comment on race relations, Sen. Robert Byrd (D., WV) declared on the March 4 Fox News Sunday: "There are white brat. I've seen a lot of white brat in my time." For two weeks, Nexis and nytimes.com searches show, America's most prominent newspaper failed to report the most senior Democratic senator's nationally televised racial slur. (Byrd quickly apologized.) Commentator Andrew Sullivan's March 18 mention of this outrage finally broke this peculiar silence. <BR><BR>But in January 1995, when House Majority Leader Rep. Dick Armey (R., Texas) called gay congressman Barney Frank (D., Massachusetts) "Barney Fag," the NYT couldn't keep quiet. "Hate speech comes to Congress," an editorial thundered the next day. The Times published seven pieces in the fortnight after what Armey called "a stumbled word" prompted his tearful apology on the House floor.<BR><BR>Finally, the Times struggles to catch up with competitors. As watchdog website smartertimes.com observed, an NYT article on conservative activist David Horowitz and the slavery-reparations controversy appeared March 21. The Washington Post's Jonathan Yardley covered the story March 5. <BR><BR>The March 11 NYT discussed a federal probe of a Brooklyn assistant D.A. for possibly accepting bribes to fix a criminal case. This was front-page news on the March 10 New York Post. <BR><BR>An editorial marking Ronald Reagan's recent birthday ran February 7, the day after America's 40th president turned 90."</i><BR><BR>On numerous issues that were politically damaging to the left, the New York Times failed to report them at all. When Hillary Clinton became the first ever First Lady to testify before a Grand Jury, every paper in the country reported it on their first page. Not the New York Times. In fact, it didn't even report on the matter until 2 days later, and only then because it was MENTIONED in another news report.<BR> <BR>Of course, editorial pages are really useless these days. I don't care what someone at the NYT happens to think about political issues. But it's unfortunate that the New York Times infects its news stories, that is - if they choose to print them at ALL, with its liberal bias. I'm surprised that people still read it.<BR>
User avatar
Kelannar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2000 9:30 pm
Top

Postby Everard » Wed Apr 25, 2001 11:46 pm

Well as I said earlier, the destruction of the enviroment is a far more important issue than whether or not a newspaper has a certain political bent or not. Talk about Fiddling while Rome burns.<BR>Perhaps if you lived where I live, in a country that has a huge hole in the ozone hovering over our heads due to the amount of fluro carbons and toxic gas pumped into the air, youd see past scoring political points and get on with some economic plan to help save the planet. And if you believe global warming isnt a reality I suggest you pull your head out of the sand and take a look outside your window. <BR><BR>As a kid I could be out in the sun all day and just turn a little brown, now if your out in the sun for 20 mins you get baked alive.<BR><BR>And as for oil drilling .....you can gaurantee that there wont be any spills in your Artic Reserve? Or will you worry about that when its too late?<BR><BR>For someone who knows more about Tolkien's themes than anybody else you seemed to have missed the point of the Scouring of the Shire completely.<BR>
User avatar
Everard
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 854
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2000 4:04 pm
Top

Postby Kelannar » Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:24 am

Everard, have you read the recent report by the person who headed the UN Climate Report on Global Warning, which suggested that the data they used was entirely inaccurate because it was based on weather stations and sea-based temperature gages. The reason why those are inaccurate is because the sea-based reports measure water temperature and not the air, and the ones near weather stations were erected 20-50 years ago and have developed urban sprawl around them, this artifically increasing their temperature. Furthermore, satellite atmosphere reports indicate that no statistically valid increase in temperature - which contradicts ALL of the computer models of global warming that the left could've thought up.<BR><BR>The New York Times didn't report that, though.<BR><BR>My point is that the information out there is skewed in favor of one side, and so people think they have enough info so that they can make statents like "get your head out of the sand." But in reality, it is the left which often suppresses these facts - in fear of disturbing their political ideology.<BR><BR>Now Everard - in regards to the "guarantee" you want about no spills. No, I can't. When did a "guarantee" against anything enter into this kind of cost-benefit analysis? Can you "guarantee" anything in the world? Of course not. It's asinine to suggest so. The world is complex and unpredictible. But if you had a newspaper that reported the ENTIRE TRUTH instead of just one side, you might realize that.<BR>
User avatar
Kelannar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2000 9:30 pm
Top

Postby Everard » Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:34 am

Im not doubting your stand on newspapers not reporting the whole truth, didnt you read my earlier post? I have no faith in newspapers whatsover. In fact I agree with you.<BR><BR>However I dont need a weather station to tell me about global warming I see it every summer first hand.<BR><BR>What do you think actually causes the ozone hole?<BR><BR>Do you agree with your Presidents refusal to cut toxic emissions as agreed in the Kyoto Protocol?<BR><BR>And if you cant gaurantee there will be no spills as has happened in Prudhoe Bay, isnt that a good reason to not drill?<BR>
User avatar
Everard
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 854
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2000 4:04 pm
Top

Postby Denethor » Thu Apr 26, 2001 1:24 am

On this newspaper business, newspapers all over the world often bend the truth to fit their own ideology. Kelannar seems to be unfairly targeting the left in this regard. In Britain for example, some of the major newspapers (e.g. The Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Sun, The Daily Express to name a few) are so right wing that it is not funny.
User avatar
Denethor
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4537
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 9:33 pm
Location: New Zealand
Top

Postby summoned » Thu Apr 26, 2001 8:53 am

Widfara, my point is precisely that of ten years being the interval between the two op/ed positions. A ten year period is a long time to span to make accusations of hypocrisy rather than simply changing one's mind. And to assume that I was or am prepared to defend Bill Clinton for anything is not warranted. I just happen to feel that the media get bashed a lot for the wrong things.
User avatar
summoned
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 748
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 10:09 am
Top

Postby ElfStar » Thu Apr 26, 2001 11:00 am

I guess we should all just go back to living in caves and hunting with spears so as not to upset the enviroment.
User avatar
ElfStar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3186
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 8:25 pm
Top

Postby Fatty_Bolger » Fri Apr 27, 2001 3:42 pm

Well, if US has to rely more and more on "foreign oil", it's the US' problem, it's US that are at fault, because the energy consumption goes up when it should goes down, it's as simple as that. Oil <BR><BR>As for the Global warming, I read indeed in some right-wing site that the head of the panel statements. He said that the most catastrophic scenarios were advertised. I think it was another guy that mentioned the terrestrial stations measures. THat said, about remote sensing, I'd liked to know at which altitude they measure the temperature, for nothing implies the warming will affect the highest layers of atmosphere, it could be the opposite as well if heat is trapped near the surface.<BR>And then, statistically you cannot be sure that your extreme scnearios can't happen, assuming they're in the error margin. All scenarios are possible, in the error margin.<BR>Interestingly, the interview of the head of panel I saw dated from late 1999. Then, last March was released their new report. The interview I read from the head of panel was seemingly showing him pretty worried with the alarming results, so it's possible he finally changed his mind.<BR>That said what's more alarming than the usual scenarios imho is the fact that each year the forecasts are worse than the year before.<BR><BR>Last question: Kelannar, do you believe that smoking cigarettes cause cancer?
User avatar
Fatty_Bolger
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1543
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 3:15 pm
Top


Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest